Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Entertainment Games

Game Journalists Uninteresting Vultures? 49

Posted by Zonk from the delicious-livers dept.
Next Generation has commentary on an article penned by David Jaffe, creator of God of War. In the article Jaffe charges folks in the game journalism business with being uninteresting hangers-on. He implores journalists to consider themselves journalists first and "part of the games industry" a distant second. The Next-Gen article has some interesting insights on the topic. From the article: "... intimacy with the game industry is a positive, rather than a negative, so long as the line that divides the journalist's function from the game-maker's is understood. The game-maker, in turn, relies heavily on journalism, en masse, on which to base creative decisions. Did every game maker play the last Tomb Raider game? Doubtful. But they all know they don't want to make a game like it. The press feeds the imagination of the creator through a system of warnings and prompts, which are then interpreted and transformed into progress."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Journalists Uninteresting Vultures? More

Game Journalists Uninteresting Vultures?

Comments Filter:

  • Here here. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hexghost ( 444585 ) on Friday November 04, 2005 @04:31PM (#13953421) Homepage
    Its about time someone said this. Let me state first my opinion: 99.9% of game journalists are complete fucking fanboys. When I want to see a product review for the latest game, what do i get? Unless the game is completely, obviously broken, I get glowing reviews that are basically rehashed press releases. All the major game sites do this, from gamespy to (of course) anything IGN. Game journalists are basically the equivilent of those stupid movie review catchlines you see from no one you've ever heard of, the kind that say "Funniest movie of the year!" for Gigli, etc.

    Game journalists: stop regurgitating the marketing fluff, start writing honest articles, and people might actually care about what you say. Even if it means you don't get your paycheck from the game companies any more.
    • I don't know, I think Fargo at GameSpy is pretty funny. I really like his game previews which really turn out to be nothing of the kind.

      You should check him out. Otherwise you're right....
    • It's "Hear hear". Courtesy of the SGPD, Slashdot Grammar Police Dept.

  • X-Play - Counter Example (Score:3, Funny)

    by szyzyg ( 7313 ) on Friday November 04, 2005 @04:33PM (#13953434)
    One of the best shows on TV, almost as Good as Henry Rollin's Film Corner.
    • I have to say, it is true that X-Play, while pretty vapid at times in their contrived little skits, are a bit more honest than most game "journalists". So much so that I sometimes wonder how they can still manage to score review copies of games anymore.

      But this issue is one reason why I refuse to ever not use quotes when I talk about game "journalists". They're not journalists. They consider themselves part of the game industry, and most of the time, they are. Think about that - think about a reporter f

  • Games and pop culture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Friday November 04, 2005 @04:53PM (#13953606) Journal
    FTA: "Jaffe was keen to point out that, far from his being an elitist point of view, he felt that journos should set themselves apart in order to do a better job of informing the public. There's something too cozy, he believes, in the people who inform the public about the game industry, viewing themselves as part of the game industry."

    True. But I think that Jaffe misses a distinction -- there is a gamer culture that the journalists are identifying with, more than just the game industry.

    It's kind of like pop culture -- there are those who read Entertainment Weekly, and are interested in what the stars are doing. Then there are the people who read the gossip column, to see if anyone they know is getting mentioned.

    The game industry is like the pop culture industry -- lots of people play the games (or watch the movies and the TV shows, and wonder what Tom and Katie are up to), but few people know the individuals who are 'making the scene'.

    The problem, like with pop culture, is that only insiders get the real scoop. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the real scoop isn't even published -- it's the dross, that so many people are familiar with already, that gets the ink. And if you give a bad review (or negative gossip), forget the advance copy of the game the game (the next party invite).

    Perhaps Jaffe should also realize that the game journalism industry is very similar to the game industry itself -- if you take risks, you're likely to get burned. Safe reporting and reviews tend tohelp with job/company solvency.

    In the end, I'd like to see honest reporting by industry insiders, rather than 'game paparazzi' doing vacuous, cover-art reviews... it's the honest part that's hard to find.

  • WORD! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04, 2005 @04:54PM (#13953619)
    Well, I guess HE told Zonk off good!

  • hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Malleus Dei ( 889640 )
    Well, I'm a gamer, and I've been a game reviewer/journalist, and the fact is that you can't write a decent review unless you can play the game you are reviewing really well and unless you have a significant amount of knowledge of the genre and subject(s) involved. Non-gamer journalists generally haven't got even the first clue about gaming and usually write hideously ignorant articles about gaming that either infuriate gamers or make them laugh.

    So, since you really need to have a participant doing the jo

    • Well of course you need someone who can play. It's the same with movies. I wouldn't trust a movie review from someone who isn't a movie watcher, or a book review from someone who isn't a book worm, or even a review about some new hardware from anybody's grandma. And typically I would rather read a review from someone who I've agreed with in the past. That's how the review becomes meaningful. Someone you trust saying "this sucks" or "that's awesome" means I can take their word for it. Some random schmo
      • I reviewed games and never once shilled. A couple of my more negative reviews weren't accepted by the editor(s) and were never published, but there wasn't any shilling. I know some other game reviewers who don't shill either.
        • Well, you and your cronies must be the minority...

          Most of the game reviews and "Game Culture" pieces I've read in the last year or so (Print and Internet) tend to fall into a few distinct categories:

          a) Pretentious Gamer Review ala Zonk's "Shadow of the Colossus" review (blah blah Games that have the power to move the human heart are so few and far between today that most commentators are still tentative to call gaming an art form blah blah). Give me an F-ing break!

          b) The Gushing Gamer Review, where the "jou

  • Journalists. (Score:3, Funny)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Friday November 04, 2005 @06:23PM (#13954338)
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage. Those who can't manage are journalists.

  • Graphics -- player's bane, reviewer's delight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@gmail. c o m> on Friday November 04, 2005 @06:53PM (#13954530) Journal
    I think the largest problem with reviewers is that they all feel compelled to have a graphics catagory and then rate games partially based on it. Remember how much fun Doom 3 was? It got on 8.5 on Gamespot, slightly higher than We Love Katamari Damacy. I recently finished Commandos 3, which was extremely difficult but much more fun/satisfying than Doom 3. Gamespot gave it a 7.7, bemoaning the graphics were horror -- still 2D -- and the camera locked into 800x600.

    Game reviewers love graphics because they can post pretty screenshots and seem objective. However, the most important part of games is the subjective fun-factor. It's like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design instead of the quality of the actors and the script.
    • The modern game-reviewing system isn't like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design—"quality" implies fitness for a purpose. Rather, it's like judging it based on how many sequins and frills the costumes have, regardless of whether or not sequins and frills add to or detract from the work as a whole.

      Graphics have their place—and that place is right next to sound, story, and gameplay (among others), on the shelf labelled, "Elements for Communicating Ideas i
    • I think this is partially an inertia thing. I remember the days of the 8-bit consoles where you needed a graphics score to check the game wasn't badly programmed. Back then a bad graphics score meant you had flickering sprites, slowdown and possibly graphical glitches. These days it's extremely uncommon to find a game that has "bad" graphics. Uninspiring or boring graphics maybe, but not usually badly programmed.

      I think it's the same with the sound score in a review, way back when you wanted to make sure yo
      • very insightful. graphics are graphics. as long as they convey the game and its atmosphere, graphics are the same across the board. what we need is to truly separate the graphics category found almost everywhere into two categories: one for artistic merit and one for technical merit.

        everyone has their bias. some reviewers dont like cel shading; a cartoon based game that is celshaded is more likely to take hits in the graphical department if its not super realistic, when compared to a game featuring somethin
    • I think the largest problem with reviewers is that they all feel compelled to have a graphics catagory and then rate games partially based on it.

      Game reviewers love graphics because they can post pretty screenshots and seem objective. However, the most important part of games is the subjective fun-factor.

      You pretty much pose the answer to the problem you point out. Graphics are much less subjective than 'satisfaction' or 'fun-factor', therefore they can be rated on a multiple point scale and you'll find t
  • I've seen this kind of commentary over and over again in the past several years, and it almost always focuses on practices of "enthusiast" print magazines that rely upon game publishers for advertising revenue, as well as access to information. So why are these critics still reading fanboy game mags, when they could be reading better journalism on game blogs?

    With just a little effort, you can find game bloggers writing about real issues, rather than just hyping the next big release. The next generation of

  • While I admit that a lot of game reviewers tend to be perhaps more forgiving than the average player when it comes to rating games, I've found that in general if you stick to the same sources for reviews it is possible to glean somewhat relevant information from them.
    I think the most important thing is to learn to understand "reviewer math". That is to say, it becomes nessecary to understand what the numbers on the ratings really mean. While some people might see an "8/10" and think that a game is pretty

  • No different than ESPN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mactari ( 220786 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `krowfur'> on Saturday November 05, 2005 @09:38AM (#13957353) Homepage
    From Jaffe's blog:
    I want game journalism- at least 50% of it- to be more like music or film journalism of old. I want it to challenge us and tear our s#!t [mactari's edit] apart and analyze it and- when we do a good job- champion it and bring the message to the masses. ...

    Now sure, some of that has to do with what the public will actually pay for (it's not like NEXT GEN magazine- one of my faves of all time- was a chart topper). But doesn't some of it also have to do with the mentality of the folks who write for these magazines IF indeed they are not respecting their OWN industry enough to claim JOURNALISM as their industry?

    Has Jaffe gone completely mad? Does he really think video game journalists are any different from the talking heads (and mouths on radio) of ESPN?

    The issue is that both "journalism" outlets are really just thinly veiled, sometimes unofficially sanctioned extensions of the respective entertainment industries. Each is, unfortunately, intertwined commercially with the product they're "reporting" on. Just as ESPN Radio's SportsCenter updates are often 20-30% (by time) commercials for games that are being shown on, you guessed it, ESPN or ABC (both owned by Disney), video gaming sites pimp games that they themselves are selling. Heck, at least one arguably large site pimps their store's (that should have you worried enough as is, that a 'news' site sells games) sales as news [insidemacgames.com] alongside their 'true' news stories.

    Let the buyer beware -- good reviews mean better relations with major gaming houses means easier copy, more codes, more exclusives, and better sales for both players. It's a fact of life, I'm afraid. Jaffe wonders why there are so many previews; that's easy. They're "reviews" without any conventional requirement for objective judgement. You can play up South Park for the N64 as a game with lots of potential even when it stinks to high heaven -- it's still in development, after all. Previews are excuses for incestuous gaming industry lovefests, and everyone's a winner, developers (Out, out, Ballmer!), gaming rag editors, authors, & owners, and even readers.

    Readers, that is, except for those like Jaffe that might truly want to see someone with both the personal and commercial cahones to call out the proverbial spade. Where are the old oldmanmurray.com folk when you need em?
  • In high school there were always those geeky kids who could DM Temple of Elemental Evil, build you a 386, draw figures straight out of Monster Manual, AND ace their exams.

    Then there were the kids that hung out with them, not because they were talented geeks, but simply because they were geeky.

    That said: I love Gamespot. Even though they have some questionable reviews [gamespot.com] from time to time, their commentary is entertaining, mature and comfortable in its geeky skin. Gerstmann, Kasavin, etc. are really the

  • This is an issue that I have had to address, being an amateur games journalist for the past couple of years. (This is a blatant plug, but also relevant so bare with me!) I have been hosting and producing a radio show (now a podcast) for the past 3 years, currently located at http://www.weeklygeekshow.com./ [www.weeklygeekshow.com] We set out to do something different, something unique. We are gamers who absolutely despised normal rating systems. If a game gets an 8.5, what the heck does that mean for you? How in the world does that

  • Its more true then you could believe (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 05, 2005 @12:10PM (#13958064)
    I went to interview at a gaming magazine once. The blatent amount of graphics fanboyism, baseless accusations, and flat out stupidity is incredibly rampant.

    During the interview, I was asked what I could contribute to the magazine. I said (paraphrased) "A more intellectual, artistic angle on gaming. I find that most games these days are simply minor graphical updates or add-ons to prior games, and it was becoming boring. That reviewers needed to focus on originality, artistic expression, and funfactor beyond the increasingly meaningless graphics."

    I could see the interviewer recoil and his face twist up when I said this. He gave me a very dismissive "well, thats an interesting perspective."

    I didnt get the job, obviously. But the shallowness and intellectual laziness of game reviewers is totally warrented.
  • Well, gaming journalists are uninteresting vultures. But so are most other journalists.

    Maybe he's just noticing now because gaming is finally big enough to have real press now.

  • ...Jeff Green.

    'nuff said.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close